Originally posted by iminvestor101
Anything coming from BCL with this context is a bit rich IMO. BCL has no credibility given its involvement with the 1990's conflict and this is just a desperate attempt to undermine the mineral right owners of the old Panguna site (SMLOLA) and the accomplishments from both the landowners and RTG to achieve peace in the region. Funny how Mark fails to mention who ACTUALLY owns the mineral rights for the old Panguna mine. He probably still thinks that whatever permits and licenses BCL holds within that region are still worth something. In the meantime he will just continue to be in the way of progress. There may not be clarity to the ownership of the mine but it is without question that the support of SMLOLA is needed for anything to be developed.
Mark, if youre reading this, just throw in the towel mate and get onboard with RTG. Your prospects are finished and so long as you continue to pursue your undeserved claims on Panguna, the people of Bougainville will not be able to move forward and find peace. At least RTG were not involved in the horrors of the 90's. BCL had their chance, they made a ton of money at the expense of the people, and they left nothing but a toxic footprint on the people and environment of Bougainville.
It is worth noting that Momis is probably going to do anything in his power to delay any progress in Bougainville and Panguna because he knows that he is at the mercy of the PNG Government, which I believe fully backs RTG. Of course, this is all about money as the ABG has a rather large stake in BCL so they will try anything to stop RTG from developing Panguna. Even the travel ban on RTG management, I believe, is a complete farce aimed at undermining RTG's pursuit of peace with the Bougainvillians. I will add that Momis cant have it both ways by fighting against the PNG government and the landowners while backing a company that helped cause the previous crisis.
It is my belief that eventually, the landowners, Momis, O'Neill, and RTG will sit down to discuss the fair and equitable share of mining proceeds at Panguna. They have no choice if they wish to provide enough funding to develop Bougainville's much needed programs and infrastructure expenditures.
To think that RTG should be shunned by the ABG is nothing short of a hypocrisy if they indeed want peace and socioeconomic development in the region. The ABG must show that it is willing to sit down and NEGOTIATE with all relevant parties in good faith. As a developer, RTG is proving to be, from an experience and environmental point of view, an optimal company to progress the Panguna mine.
As a last note, i would like to express my genuine concern in providing social and economic reforms in the region to the benefit of the people. Panguna, after all, is bigger than just developing a mine. It is about giving an opportunity to the people of Bougainville to improve their quality of life and have an opportunity to move on from the previous devastating conflict at Panguna.
If you are standing in the way of progress in any way, shape, or form then my advice is GTFO as its not doing any good!
Rant over.
GLTAH and DYOR
It’ssimply pointless and irrelevant comparing BCL today with the previousiteration. Very different entities; and mining practices today would bedifferent to 40 years ago.
Thereality is that the senior executives from BCL (and for that matter its parentcompany CRA) who ran the company in the 1970s and 80s are either dead or longsince retired. The recent ex BCl chairman Robert Burns was himself a technicalmanager at BCL in the 1980s, removed at the time from the decisions that nowseem to rankle the aggrieved members of SMOLA and others. But even thatperceived obstacle has now been removed.
Theshareholders are predominantly Bougainvilleans and they would therefore be thebeneficiaries if mining were to resume - very different to RTG (a point I havemade somewhat endlessly since late 2017). An entity owned by Bougainvilleanswould be more likely to do the right thing by Bougainville in terms of both theeconomy and the environment. It is simply pointless (and just a bit ridiculous)harping about BCL as though the company and its senior management had beenfrozen in a time warp since 1989!
Ofcourse it’s important to acknowledge the past and learn from it, but at thesame time it’s more important to also look forward and plan for the future.It’s apparent that under current structures there is no motive for BCL to doanything other than work in the interests of Bougainville; there are no othervested or outside interests to appease other than some minority shareholders inthe public shareholdings.
Anotherthing (having followed these issues for some time as an interested observer)the activities of SMLOLA have been as clear as mud. It’s not actually clear whomthey represent. At the very least these issues are vexed because at varioustimes customary land owners have expressed support for BCL.
Alsointeresting is that the ABG continues to work with BCL on community projects,yet presently seems unwilling to entertain RTG, which tells us quite a deal interms of the work that RTG would need to do to have any chance of developingPanguna.
Surelyit’s time that the PNG shareholders as a block (and in particular the residentsof Bougainville) came to the realisation that BCL is a financial and operatingentity almost entirely owned by them. It is simply pointless harping about the past, other than to learn from it. The shareholders have no-one to convince but themselves. No-one (and who would they be anyway?) is going to argue that some things would need to be done differently.
Irealise that it’s likely that the mine ownership levels might change, dependingon project financing arrangements (say if a partner was invited in) but that probablyapplies to whomever redevelops the operation.
